Tito Sotto’s plagiarism: Is it really that important in the scheme of things?

With regard to this whole circus over plagiarism allegedly perpetrated by Philippine Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, I have to ask the obvious question: Was anyone harmed? I frame that question with the level of unrelenting ferocity I observe with which people have been attacking Senator Sotto. Even as this issue is “debated” ad nauseum, traders of pirated DVDs hawk their wares in Greenhills, Quiapo, and Binondo in the open with impunity. Ordinary Filipinos — I’m sure even many of the very ones who pump out those tweets of “indignation” — are routine consumers of stolen intellectual property, illegally downloading movies, copying and distributing illicit copies of songs and movies to friends and family, installing unregistered software in their machines, etcetera, etcetera.

What? Me worry?
I’m no fan of Sotto, but I don’t buy this whole “outrage” over the Senator’s alleged plagiarism. It’s stampede mentality at best. Considering there are other banal acts of intellectual property theft and intellectual dishonesty going on around us, the focus on Sotto is disproportionate both in concentration and timing and, as such, is clearly motivated by the pet personal issues (mainly around the Reproductive Health Bill) of some parties involved.

See, just because some issues are fads does not make them more important than those that are for now lower in profile or outside the radars of the chateratti. Remember the name Ronald Llamas? Llamas, adviser on political affairs to the President, early this year was caught on video buying pirated DVDs at a mall. Like plagiarism, there is no existing Philippine law that penalises purchase of stolen intellectual property. More to the point, that “issue” is now languishing in obscurity, just like all the “outrage” over the preventable factors that contribute to flooding in Manila has died down (just as the same outrage did back in 2009 after Ondoy bowed out). But just because there is no longer any high-profile outrage over man-made contributors to flooding — or presidential advisers buying bootleg DVDs — does not make those things less important.

In any case, most ordinary Filipinos won’t be able to grasp intellectual property theft and copyright infringement anyway. Recall the question I posed at the start: Is anyone really harmed by intellectual property theft? To the ordinary citizen of a nation not exactly known for originality, innovation, or bold creativity, copyright infringement does not compute. Ownership of original work quite simply does not make sense to an unoriginal people.

If I were Sotto, I wouldn’t worry. Indeed, the Senator’s biggest mistake was responding to his Twitterati detractors to begin with — not once but twice (or has it been thrice already?). He should have done his homework first. Despite the Philippines being purported to be the “social media capital” of the world, most Filipinos spend their time online watching “scandal” videos, chatting in jejemon, and persuading some middle-aged sucker residing halfway around the planet to send them some “load”. Sotto’s bloc of voters are not the type who’d be seeing content generated by our little niche in the citizen-journalism ecosystem appearing in their news feeds and timelines anytime soon. As Alfred E. Neuman say: What? Me worry?

The Philippines is a country where more abominable acts of impunity routinely go unnoticed, unreported, and un-hyped. These acts of impunity produce real victims that ordinary voters can relate with. As of this writing, for example, none of the owners or managers of Sulpicio Lines has seen any jail time. It is, indeed, lonely at the top, Get Real Post being the last remaining true blogging rock star in our little corner of the Philippine blogosphere. Consider that distinction de facto earned, as we have the only really sensible take on the concept of Pinoy-style impunity (boldface in excerpt below added by author for emphasis)…

When we do a bit of thinking outside the little square framed for lesser minds by our honourable oligarchs in the Philippine Media, we will consider how from 1987 through to 2008, a single shipping company — Sulpicio Lines Inc (SLI) — was a common denominator underlying the preventable deaths of at least 10,000 people at sea. Let’s say for argument’s sake, that SLI employs 50 senior management personnel and that every one of them can be deemed accountable for those deaths. That’s a victim-to-perpetrator ratio of 200-to-1. It is a ratio that dwarfs Andal Ampatuan’s alleged accountability for the deaths of 57 people.

Look around for a minute and take stock of the Media buzz and ask:

Who is huffing and puffing for the Sulpicio Lines victims today?

Simple answer. Nobody. They’re all busy huffing and puffing about Tito Sotto’s alleged plagiarism.

Tito Sotto’s act of “impunity”? Remember the 10,000-odd victims of the preventable disasters that involved Sulpicio Lines and consider whether or not Sotto’s “outrageous” crime against Sarah Pope (or whatever the heck her name is) is really that important.

print

104 Comments on “Tito Sotto’s plagiarism: Is it really that important in the scheme of things?”

  1. I seem to recall making a similar point: Filipinos do not hold their elected representatives to account. Sotto’s brother could be a rapist – bad example, Sotto’s brother is a rapist – and Filipinos would be upset for 1-2 days and then forget about it. That’s why the cretinous president can keep on doing what he does: he knows Filipinos so well. They can’t hold a thought for more than a couple of days. Let the masses exhaust themselves on faux outrage and then get back to business as usual.

  2. I dunno but in terms of the issue, I still want to have some of accountability from the senator over what he did – plagiarism or whatever heinous crime he is accused of. It has been said that plagiarism is not exactly a punishable offence but my reading of the situation is that some people do get away from it (even if they known they had done a wrong thing). Only now that some are caught red-handed and perhaps with the method of mob rule or cyber bullying, some people wanted to have a sense of accountability as well. Perhaps my inclination is that because plagiarism is a big deal for me but I leave it to other people why they want to hunt him with pitchforks.

    I guess the only reason why Sotto even bother to hit back is that he was upping his arrogance level or just won’t give up.

    I would agree that there are more real victims and that suffered worse and were ignored. But we all know that the Filipinos in general have a very short memory. Today, we are enjoying the internet which we used to archive everything and have the convenience to look past issues that were unresolved. I just don’t know if the authorities or some people will bother to look them again.
    Besides, the plagiarism issue is definitely a good reminder (again) of something that we are. A article penned by the same author wrote it proves this.

  3. I think we have to look at this beyond it just being plagiarism or, more correct, copyright infringement. It’s about the broken trust the electorate had in Sen Sotto. He was caught lying within the walls of the senate, and has the arrogance not to apologize for it. Then he uses parliamentary immunity, which possibly isn’t applicable in this case, to hide behind.

    He can’t be impeached. So what can the public do? They stage a protest. And Facebook and Twitter combined is the new EDSA.

  4. To do plagiarism means, you have no mind of your own. No original ideas. You copy people’s work and claim it as your own. It’s disgusting that a comedian/senator cannot even write his own speech and ideas…These are the leaders, we have. No wonder, the Philippines is in dismal state…

  5. “To the ordinary citizen of a nation not exactly known for originality, innovation, or bold creativity, copyright infringement does not compute.”

    Wow. Someone did not do their research.

    You talk as if many of the negative traits that allow impunity to pass by unnoticed is exclusively possessed by the Filipino people. Well, they are not.

    Also, we are not an unoriginal people. If you had not been so hell-bent using that as a premise in order to make your point, then you would’ve known that we do have original creations of our own. Lots of them, in fact.

    I mean, are you even Filipino? Because when I go abroad, I hear different. We’re not totally devoid of originality, contrary to what you are pointing out.

    Also, sure, as individuals or as a nation we may not always be able to express prolonged outrage over every single issue that has plagued this country but that does not mean that we don’t care or that we don’t remember the atrocities of the past. Some of us are busy surviving as well and are smart enough to realize that angry as we are, we can’t always overturn the system immediately. But we don’t forget and we are not callous.

    And actually, forgetting is not wholly a Filipino trait as well because if everyone remembered grudges, I doubt that a global community would even exist at all.

    And how is it that abroad we hear of financial crises left and right, travesty of other people’s rights, unfounded wars that cannot be ended – isn’t it also because the citizens of these countries have turned a blind eye towards the wrongs committed by those in power? So why single out Filipinos?

    Nobody was harmed, except Sotto’s integrity, perhaps. And in case we forget, the reason why this issue just keeps getting bigger is that not only did he choose an inopportune time to commit this blunder, he also refuses to just simply apologize. The “apology” of his CoS to Sarah did not help either.

    Sorry, but this piece could’ve been better if it had less of character attacks on Filipinos. Or on most Filipinos, as if you were certain of how every Filipino conducted themselves or thought (for themselves) of the issues you presented herein along with that of Sotto’s plagiarism.

    1. Cite specific examples of Pinoy originality plez.

      And, by the way, the fact that there are “financial crises left and right, travesty of other people’s rights, unfounded wars that cannot be ended” in other places and among other peoples does not in any way diminish the observations I make about the Philippines and Filipinos. We have our own issues and challenges and need to mount solutions that deliver results in absolute terms.

      In case you haven’t noticed this piece (and this whole site for that matter) is about the dysfunctional character of Filipinos.

    2. I understand the sentiments above and I agree with the idea that the character attacks on Filipinos is uncalled for. The Filipino people has nothing to do with what Sen. Sotto did. So why berate and castigate them when it was very clear who did the wrong thing?

      Was anyone harmed? Sad to say, yes. In fact, several entities have been harmed by it. For one, the incident left Sotto’s integrity in tatters. He has also been criticized for not owing and apologizing personally for what he did. Second, the person from whom the idea he plagiarized. How does it feel to be robbed of your works/ideas and by a senator of a republic at that? Third, the Senate where Sotto is a member of. That august body’s image as an institution has again taken another shot of notoriety by Sotto’s latest transgression. Lastly, the people, to whom Sen. Sotto swore to serve with integrity and honesty. The people that sees him as the embodiment of what is right and proper in government. The people who entrusted their fate and confidence in him who strongly believes of his dedication to serve them with utmost confidence and trust. He represents them. But not on this one. It is all his own. As a plagiarist, he has only himself to blame.

      I don’t see Sotto’s act as comparable with those who patronizes pirated products. But make no mistakes about it, both acts deserve condemnation and must be dealt with accordingly. Those who buy pirated digital recordings violates the law. However, those violators are not of Sotto’s rank. They may have violated the law but Sotto’s plagiarism violates not only the law but also moral ethics. As a senator of the Republic, what he did was reprehensible and unbecoming of a senator. Yes, I remember Ronald Llamas. The shame he brought to the gov’t. was really horrendous. But unlike Llamas, Sotto is in a good situation. If Llamas was not able to survive the effect of his dreadful act (buying pirated DVDs), Sotto will.

      In spite of the embarrassment and shame he got from it I still believe that Sotto will be able to survive this scandal.

      1. @jona-s said:

        The Filipino people has nothing to do with what Sen. Sotto did.

        Na-ah, the Filipino people have EVERYTHING to do with this issue – because Sotto is an ELECTED official and, as such, a representative of the people.

        1. He plagiarized and fooled them. The plagiarism didn’t have the blessings of the people. He did it behind their backs and they have everything to do with it?

          He’s being elected has nothing to do with it though he, as a result, casted doubt as to the wisdom of such fact.

        2. If there was any doubt to be cast upon Sotto’s character, it should’ve been so a long time ago considering he has been linked to the Pepsi Paloma rape case back in the 80’s. He was also a host in low-brow exploitation variety shows like Eat Bulaga and espoused mendicant values in sitcoms like Iskul Bukol. Yet he was elected Senator by the popular vote.

          His being elected has EVERYTHING to do with it, dude.

  6. While I despise how Sotto reacted after he was caught plagiarizing, the blogger also mishandled or at worse capitalize on the misdeed. He could have just informed the senator discretely, asked that his work be cited in the published version of the speech, or reflect on the bigger picture.

    I don’t understand why the blogger made a big fuss on the matter when in fact he and the senator are advocating the same thing. Isn’t he should be happy that what he had written or what he believe in form part of the debate on the use of contraceptives in the Philippines? What is his bottom line in writing that blog anyway?

    The blogger should look at the bigger picture rather than personal interest in this matter. Plagiarism in a speech in Congress is different from plagiarism in school work/researches as it does not stagnate the creation of knowledge.

    1. I think the issue got blown up when Sotto insulted all bloggers. “Just a blogger” was something demeaning, especially from someone whose used a blog as an uncredited source.

      Add in the Chief of Staff’s non-apology+insult and you now have chaos brewing.

    2. I don’t understand why the blogger made a big fuss on the matter when in fact he and the senator are advocating the same thing.
      -Sorry but she and the senator are the opposite sides of the issue.

      Isn’t he should be happy that what he had written or what he believe in form part of the debate on the use of contraceptives in the Philippines?
      -I think she would have been more grateful if her words would have been credited as hers. That’s her only issue. She didn’t even know that her work was going to be used in a privilege speech. Why? The one who lifted up the material didn’t bother to ask permission or inform her. Of course, anyone who takes another one’s possession without permission or knowledge is always considered a thief.

      What is his bottom line in writing that blog anyway?
      -I don’t know if you are familiar why some bloggers work but usually bloggers try to express and share information for the benefit of anyone who finds the blog. Of course, they are others who use blogs for commercial purposes.

      The blogger should look at the bigger picture rather than personal interest in this matter.
      -Which bigger picture? RH Bill? She‘s not even from this country.

      Plagiarism in a speech in Congress is different from plagiarism in school work/researches as it does not stagnate the creation of knowledge.
      -Is plagiarism in Congress or government more convenient to do compared to the Academe. How do the two plagiarisms differ? Of course, the Academe poses greater standards but does that mean that elected officials or public figures doesn’t have standards at all?

    3. He could have just informed the senator discretely, asked that his work be cited in the published version of the speech, or reflect on the bigger picture. – livro

      In other words, “inareglo na lang sana”. If that’s the case, the act of plagiarism will no longer be relevant in the future. Nobody will be found guilty so long as the offended party would ‘informed discreetly, the plagiarist for a piece of the action.

      Terrible logic.

      1. Ang babaw (read: %#*!) mo talaga. Barkada mo talaga si fishball.

        I’m fond of rehash items. I’ve commented this one already in this blog. This one is for you.

        “We have this copyright law in our country –

        According to Wiki:

        “Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code provides for fair use of copyrighted material. The criteria for fair use is almost identical to the fair use doctrine in United States copyright law, with the exception that even unpublished works qualify as fair use under Philippine copyright law.”

        There is this news in US just recently – “Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use”

        Snippet:

        “It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.”

        According to http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html re: Fair Use Doctrine :

        “Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

        The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes:

        – The nature of the copyrighted work
        – The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
        – The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work”

        All the cases of plagiarisms that I’ve read were actually violations of copyright infringement law.

        I would like to quote this one –

        “Schools enforce plagiarism.
        The courts enforce copyright infringement.”

        1. Trosp, with due respect (a word you seem not familiar with), your kilometric post clarified nothing. Just go down to the specifics. What is it really that you want to say?

          I commented on someone else’s post and you butted it. It’s obvious that you disagreed with what I said. Can you plainly, simply and calmly point out what it is?

          Don’t just cut, copy and paste. Articulate your view also.

        2. @jona-s

          Once there is this idiot commenter in this blog who was posting his comments using different names because he did not want his comments deleted or spammed. He thought that by using his original commenter’s name, his comment will be automatically deleted so he has to use variants of his commenter’s name. He did not even consider that there are also other commenters who could have the same name as his. That’s why I’ve labeled him idiot.

          And he was posting his comment from the same IP address.

          I’m not saying you and that other idiot commenter named Jonas are the same commenters but I can see similarities.

          You are uncomfortable when someone is BUTTING IN when you are arguing with somebody in this commenting board which for all the commenters know is a public forum.

          Don’t you know that you can have your own blog for free if you’re uncomfortable with commenters just butting in with their unsolicited comments.

          BTW,it’s obvious your opinion are based not on facts but on speculations. Mine, I always have my opinion with facts that it can stand on that’s why I always provided links and the copied and pasted snippets.

          Kanya-kanyang style yan.

          So far, nobody in this blog has refuted my argument every time I have facts with my opinion.

          The nice thing about having facts with me is I don’t even have to make my own comment. I can just let the facts do the talking.

          Pero sa mga bobo, katulad ni fishball, facts does not count. I also see that facts bored you. That’s why I’ve labeled fact-challenged.

        3. Trosp,

          O, bakit napunta sa old and settled issue ang usapan? Bakit na-off topic?

          For somebody who loves to mouth ‘stupid’, ‘idiot, ‘bobo’, and other derogatory remarks just for the fun of disrespecting other posters, that’s a mouthful. Napipikon ka. You love to dish dirt but you cannot take it? For someone who admitted that he intentionally do acts para lang ipahiya ang kapwa mo poster, mukhang ikaw ang napapahiya ngayon, bata.

          Yes, I was forced to use different names and explained it already. An admission was made as who prevented me and the issue was settled amicably. So why are you bringing it back again? Am I using another name again? Am I violating any rule here?

          Trosp, since you never experience being stopped from posting, you don’t know how it is. You will never know what you are talking about when you are enjoying your immunity from being stopped, however disrespectful you are on the board. You love to talk about my “names” but intentionally ignore the reason for it? Self-serving.

          Who said I’m uncomfortable when somebody butts in in a discussion? I don’t mind it, I even welcome it. What I mind is, butting it for the purpose of trolling; of offending; of making trouble like what you are doing now. If you’re going to butt in just to make “pahiya on the board” that’s evil. I don’t like evil.

          Your posts are based on facts? Well, don’t say it, do it. Your posts should speak for you Trosp. Not the other way around.

          Go back on the issue and stop acting immature.

        4. @jona-s

          My comment about you is not an off-topic. It’s to give the comment readers here the idea on how your mind works. You as a commenter on this blog.

          Whether you’re worth the time.

          (Kung sabagay, si fishball, pinagtyatyagaan nga.)

          When I labeled that Jonas is an idiot, I’ve facts to support it. Kaya nga lang old issue na according to you. Pero the facts that went with it remains. And haven’t you read that I’m fond of rehash?

          When I labeled you as jona-s the fact challenged dud, I’ve facts to support it.

          You have all the time to refute it.

          I don’t call persons names because I enjoy doing it. It’s because their hubris has to be challenged. My face-off with their pomposities.

          One idiot (again) remark from your comment –

          “You will never know what you are talking about when you are enjoying your immunity from being stopped.”

          Immunity???

          You’re speculating again.

          Better luck next time dud.

        5. The crux of my argument is your previous comment:

          “Now, you want media out of Gloria Arroyo’s case and her date with history for alleged corruptions she committed during her term?”

          Daido’s comment:

          “You still don’t get it, do you? Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. That is what was happening in our country. That term is also connected to another term called mob mentality, which you want to glorify.”

          What I commented:

          “Comprehending Daido’s comment, it’s the trial by media that is the issue and not the media per se.”

          Jeez, you don’t even know your idiocy.

        6. The crux of my argument is your previous comment: – Trosp
          —–
          Why will you do that when I already showed you what Daido said about the media to prove you did not comprehend his point?

          Why will you still “comprehend” it that way when I pointed out to you what Daido’s thinking of the media the proof of which is quoted below?

          Speaking of the media (Trosp, read that, the media ha?), Marcos was a crook bwcause he was pointed as one by media pundits. – Daido Katsumi

          People blamed GMA because the media (O, another the media!) highlighted her faults and made her supposedly anti-masa. While the media (here it is again, Trosp!) who are close with the Aquinos won’t look critically on their mistakes, especially on thw current president’s ineptitude. – Daido Katsumi

          Those controversies from the past admin? They were just sensationalized by the biased media (Biased daw o! Ang tindi!). – Daido Katsumi

          Case closed.

        7. jona-s You can’t still point to me where Daido has categorically commented he wanted the media out.

          Is that a very hard thing for you.

          Daido’s comment:

          “Speaking of the media (Trosp, read that, the media ha?), Marcos was a crook bwcause he was pointed as one by media pundits. – Daido Katsumi

          People blamed GMA because the media (O, another the media!) highlighted her faults and made her supposedly anti-masa. While the media (here it is again, Trosp!) who are close with the Aquinos won’t look critically on their mistakes, especially on thw current president’s ineptitude. – Daido Katsumi

          Those controversies from the past admin? They were just sensationalized by the biased media (Biased daw o! Ang tindi!). – Daido Katsumi ”

          Did he commented he want the media out? Or you’re just interpreting his comments to suit a narrative that you want.

        8. Is exposing your idiocy bullying? This is aside from accusing me of having a special privilege in commenting here heh.

          Who are the commenters I’ve bullied here?

          Don’t give me the name of Fishball, just like you, he is a troll. He is not a commenter.

      2. Trosp,

        Tahan na brad. I don’t know what I did against you that you are getting personal to me.

        You called me bobo, idiot, tanga, etc. just because you do not agree with what I’m saying. Tama ba ‘yan? Gawain ba ng isang matinong tao ‘yan?

        Swerte ka spoiled ka dito sa blog na ito. Don’t abuse the privilege that you’re enjoying here.

        Let’s stick to the issue. And grow up, please.

        1. What you did to me?.

          I hate pompous people and they should be called out for that.

          I don’t have a special privilege here. I always comment with facts to support my claim. Just calling you bobo etc., I can support it with facts.

          Better luck next time kid.

        2. Pompous? Did you look your self at the mirror? Lol!

          Facts. You always say ‘facts’; that you can support your self with fact. But sadly, I have not seen any. Never.

          S’ya, s’ya, ang tutoo n’yan e galit ka lang every time na mabubutata ka.

          Swerte ka, ka-chokaran mo si benign0. Ang kagaya mong kakaning itik hindi pup’wede sa mga forum o blogs na matitindi ang mga commentators.

          Dito ka na lang, safe ka pa. Protected and assured of continued existence. No matter how boring it is.

        3. Since when have I made any claim without supporting it with facts?

          Unquestionably, bobo ka talaga (supported by fats yan).

          Cite any of my claims here that I did not support with facts.

          I look at myself in the mirror and the one I see is what is in my avatar – no more no less. I don’t hide my identity.

          May yagbols ka ba na ilagay yung photo mo and disclose your identity here?

        4. “Since when have I made any claim without supporting it with facts?” – Trosp
          —–

          You made a lot of claim and statements that doesn’t have any facts. Here read what you said on this example

          Comprehending Daido’s comment, it’s the trial by media that is the issue and not the media per se.- Trosp

          That is what you claimed without the benefit of supporting it with facts. Actually, what you said was opposite to what Daido really said.

          Speaking of the media (Trosp, read that, the media ha?), Marcos was a crook bwcause he was pointed as one by media pundits. – Daido Katsumi

          People blamed GMA because the media (O, another the media!) highlighted her faults and made her supposedly anti-masa. While the media (here it is again, Trosp!) who are close with the Aquinos won’t look critically on their mistakes, especially on thw current president’s ineptitude. – Daido Katsumi

          Those controversies from the past admin? They were just sensationalized by the biased media (Biased daw o! Ang tindi!). – Daido Katsumi

          That is what I call real and concrete facts. Not an imaginary one.

        5. The crux of my argument is your previous comment:

          “Now, you want media out of Gloria Arroyo’s case and her date with history for alleged corruptions she committed during her term?”

          Daido’s comment:

          “You still don’t get it, do you? Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. That is what was happening in our country. That term is also connected to another term called mob mentality, which you want to glorify.”

          What I commented:

          “Comprehending Daido’s comment, it’s the trial by media that is the issue and not the media per se.”

          Jeez, you don’t even know your idiocy.

        6. “I hate pompous people and they should be called out for that.” – Trosp

          “Hate”, your favorite word.

          No problem with calling out people if they commit something worth calling out. But you don’t do it just because you’re insecure of them. That you feel inferior to them.

          Why call names, attack and insult “pompous people” without provocation? Why feel threatened when we’re just exchanging ideas and sharing opinion here? Why resort to verbal violence and be a blog bully?

          Just stop hating people, Trosp, especially those you admire.

        7. jona-s

          Pompous as defined in online dictionary –

          “Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious”

          I hate them and nobody can stop me from expressing my hate.

          And its synonym:

          “condescension – the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior.”

          And your previous comment:

          “But you don’t do it just because you’re insecure of them. That you feel inferior to them.”

          LOL…

        8. Pompous as defined in online dictionary –

          “Characterized by excessive self-esteem or exaggerated dignity; pretentious”

          I hate them and nobody can stop me from expressing my hate. – Trosp
          —–
          I believe you because you have been spreading hate on this blog as far as I can remember and nobody can stop you.

          And that is also the reason why I don’t believe you when you said you always back up your claim with facts. People who hate are incapable of objectivity. How can you be objective with people whom you labeled pompous because you hate them? Hate equals lie.

          Go ahead, spread some more hate.

        9. @jona-s: ‘Hate equals lie.’

          Hey, sugarcoated things are more like a lie than hating. So every criticism backing up with facts is ‘hate’, according to you.

          Stop being so delusional and look at the bigger picture. Grow up, kid.

        10. So every criticism backing up with facts is ‘hate’, according to you. – Daido Katsumi

          That would only be true if every criticism is like Trosp’s.

        11. Ummm, let me look how this loser has commented last time when he badmouthed everybody in this blog…

          Truly a gem once I’ve found it. It will really confirm how this loser’s mind work.

        12. Is exposing your idiocy bullying? This is aside from accusing me of having a special privilege in commenting here heh.

          Who are the commenters I’ve bullied here?

          Don’t give me the name of Fishball, just like you, he is a troll. He is not a commenter.

      3. The crux of my argument is your previous comment: – Trosp
        —–
        Why will you do that when I already showed you what Daido said about the media to prove you did not comprehend his point?

        Why will you still “comprehend” it that way when I pointed out to you what Daido’s thinking of the media the proof of which is quoted below?

        Speaking of the media (Trosp, read that, the media ha?), Marcos was a crook bwcause he was pointed as one by media pundits. – Daido Katsumi

        People blamed GMA because the media (O, another the media!) highlighted her faults and made her supposedly anti-masa. While the media (here it is again, Trosp!) who are close with the Aquinos won’t look critically on their mistakes, especially on thw current president’s ineptitude. – Daido Katsumi

        Those controversies from the past admin? They were just sensationalized by the biased media (Biased daw o! Ang tindi!). – Daido Katsumi

        Case closed.

      4. The only thing you can do to justify what you are doing (actually trolling!) is to take me on issues that’s being discussed.

        You said you “exposed” me, then, show it in a post and identify what kind of ‘expose’ you did. Calling names to ridicule is not an ‘expose’. It’s cry for help for you know you are losing control.

        You once admitted that your intention was to make “pahiya”. Is that the kind of maturity you have?

        Buti ka nga hindi pinipigilan dito. Nobody can stop or even dare to stop you with your bullying tactics. Whatever you say, okay lang. Ako, wala akong tinawag na gago, idiot, tanga, etc. na gaya ng ginagawa mo sa kausap mo pero I’m being “watch very closely”.

        So, take advantage of the kind of “freedom” you have here. Elucidate, explain and clarify whatever you want to say, either be it accusing, explaining or just narrating.

        Don’t just froth in the mouth and say those expletives. Matanda ka na (based on your picture), ipaliwanag mo ang sarili mo. I’m not calling you names nor attacking you unprovoked. Huwag mong daanin sa init ng ulo.

        Don’t be a bully. That’s bad.

        1. So you want the rehash of your idiocy so here it is –

          “Once there is this idiot commenter in this blog who was posting his comments using different names because he did not want his comments deleted or spammed. He thought that by using his original commenter’s name, his comment will be automatically deleted so he has to use variants of his commenter’s name. He did not even consider that there are also other commenters who could have the same name as his. That’s why I’ve labeled him idiot.

          And he was posting his comment from the same IP address.

          I’m not saying you and that other idiot commenter named Jonas are the same commenters but I can see similarities.”

          You admitted that you are that idiot Jonas and you are the same.

          Your cop-out – “O, bakit napunta sa old and settled issue ang usapan?”

          When it was settled? Has anybody here asked you to settle it?

          It’s not settled. It’s a record on how your mind works. In my book, I call it idiocy.

          Am I old in my picture? Nabading ka na naman he he he…

          Ayam mo ng name calling kaya picture calling na lang heh.

          Hey man, how about your picture?

        2. So you want the rehash of your idiocy so here it is –

          “Once there is this idiot commenter in this blog who was posting his comments using different names because he did not want his comments deleted or spammed.

          You admitted that you are that idiot Jonas and you are the same.

          You are right, you are rehashing an old and settled issue. That’s how empty your position is. Anyway, let me help your faltering memory even though it’s a waste of time.

          Long story short, I admitted I was forced to use different IDs to be able to post. I was able to post only to be erased/deleted again and so on. But eventually, on the bloggers judgement call, I was allowed to post again.

          It’s old because the concerned (Gogs, benign0) no longer talk about it. And I consider it settled because, after being erased and blocked, I’m back and posting again.

          To further update you, go to the thread entitled, “It’s So Obvious Why WeHave No Olympic Medals, Look At Our Society”.
          http://getrealphilippines.com/2012/08/its-so-obvious-why-we-have-no-olympic-medals-look-at-our-society/

          Your cop-out – “O, bakit napunta sa old and settled issue ang usapan?”
          When it was settled? Has anybody here asked you to settle it?
          It’s not settled. It’s a record on how your mind works. In my book, I call it idiocy.

          For me it is settled. If you cannot move on because your desire to become the moderator of this blog is too great, that’s your call. The issue does not concern you, it’s the bloggers jurisdiction. You are usurping authority by sheer guts and nitwittedness.

          What you should be concern about are the issues on board. Leave the moderating to the bloggers.

          I was not name-calling when I said that matanda ka na. Based on your picture and you are. Nothing’s wrong with that. What’s wrong is the immaturity or infantility of character you are demonstrating on the board.

          Excuse me if I no longer respond to your post that focuses on personality. I’m challenging you to take me on issues. If you cannot do that the talking is over.

        3. @jona-s

          You commented –

          “You said you “exposed” me, then, show it in a post and identify what kind of ‘expose’ you did. Calling names to ridicule is not an ‘expose’. It’s cry for help for you know you are losing control. ”

          You asked for the evidence of your idiocy, I gave it. So, what is your problem now? Telling the readers here how your mind works is name calling?

          Last time I checked, you’re insisting I have a special privilege in this blog.

          Now you’re claiming I want to be a moderator of this blog he he he.

          Care to show any evidence? (Am I not justified calling you idiot because you’re always making a claim without supporting it with evidence?).

          The moderator has nothing to do in my exposing your idiocy. They can delete my comment if I violated any of their terms of service. And I have not.

          They have deleted your comments because you’ve violated their terms of service no more no less.

          Another of your idiocy er I mean pompousness aka self-aggrandizement – the moderators does not talk about you means your violations are settled? Jeez…

          Did they really talk about you?

          How about posting comments that violates their terms of service and let’s see if you can get away with it.

          They don’t talk about you because you’re not worth talking about.

          BTW again, you’re claiming I’m old. Then how old am I?

          Who are the commenters that I bullied in this blog?

        4. jon-s, the moderators have deleted your abusive comments (remember you badmouthed everybody in this blog) on that previous post in this blog and this is what is left. From one of the moderators –

          “Jonas/ sanjo, it is you who takes crying lessons from Kris. Are you resentful that others of your ilk have plum assignments and you are assigned to take us on? IS YOUR LIFE THAT EMPTY THAT YOU GO INTO AN ENEMY CAMP,AND JUST INSULT (my caps)? Double barreled i d s. I won’t tell you t leave though like Kris you lack so much attention you will settle getting some from GRP writers and frequent posters. Sounds like you could use a hug. Just get it from Grace Lee or all the other Noynoy decoys.”

  7. Benigno, I don’t know why I should do your research for you. You were the one who started shooting your mouth (or your fingers) on Filipino unoriginality. Now, someone is calling you on it. But since you obviously are very much in the dark, I will start with a few examples.

    In the area of music, you have your OPMs as well as great Filipino composers such as Levi Celerio, George Canseco, Ryan Cayabyab, Jose Mari Chan, Rosalina Abejo, Michael Dadap, among others. A good number of them are world-renowned too. I hope I don’t have to list their compositions for you.

    In the area of arts, you could go to Ugu Bigyan or to Antique for pottery. You can go to Paete for wood sculpting. Or you can also look at a list of all our painters.

    In literature, you’ve got Florante and Laura, El Filibusterismo, Noli Me Tangere. Then you’ve got writers like Francisco Arcellana, Amado V. Hernandez, F. Sionil Jose, Alejandro Roces, Nick Joaquin, Lualhati Bautista, etc.

    You want inventors for something more scientifically-related? Look up Angel Alcala, Benjamin Cabrera, Francisco Fronda, etc.

    In theater, you have indie films. You might also want to check out on Gantimpala Theater who has been around 35 years already. Or you can go and watch some original plays by young writers of today. Or you can watch performances by Dulaang UP, Repertory Philippines, Tanghalang Pilipino to get a taste of original Filipino works.

    Just to name a FEW aspects and a very narrow range.

    I’m sure I could get in touch with more people who can present you with more and more and more examples of Filipino originality, ingenuity and creativity. And there are probably a lot of areas I missed. Heck, we have even created religions here. I’m sure we also have many more contributions from our indigenous folks who have not yet been so westernized.

    And there are many more contemporary Filipinos who continue to create original works of their own who remain obscure to you because you remain so pitted in your narrow view of the dysfunctionality of the Filipinos. Bah. You’ve probably never even gone around taking note of these things because your radar only picks up that which is bad in Filipino and none of the good.

    1. Nice list. Would you say those people you cited are representative of the larger society or nation in much the same way that the Japanese and Chinese are regarded for their harmoniously cohesive industry and discipline, the Germans for their engineering and manufacturing prowess, the French and Italians for their aesthetic taste, and the British and Americans for their enterprise and commercial acumen?

        1. I should say that’s “predisposed AGAINST medicines.”

          Also, the case I mentioned (of the 14 and 16 year old kids, drugged with shabu) took place for MONTHS starting from last year and was only found out and ended with the father’s arrest just recently.

        2. Whoaaa!!! That was a mouthful! I rarely read kilometric arguments but your’s an exception.

          Indeed, enlightened minds are those who do not only read books or articles that affirm or reinforce their original stand and brands as bias those that argues for the opposite. Reading, as in eating fruits, does not necessarily mean we eat the seeds together with the flesh.

        3. …………Oh my. I think this anti-climatic discussion should be punctuated. The arsenals are a mismatch; like a rifle versus pistol on a sniper match 🙂

      1. You know, you belabor the whole point too much.

        What you said is that Filipinos are unoriginal people. You go on to insinuate the Filipino people have never had an original creation in their entire (cultural, national) lives. I have given you much evidence to the contrary, you insist on finding further fault with it.

        That is your decision, not mine. Even foreigners have better things to say about us than some of the [more] appalling things I have read here on this blog entry.

        Are these achievements representative of us as Filipinos? YES. They came from the Filipino culture, did they not? They are fruits of the experiences of our fellowmen. And as I have told you, this is just a small list. And many are still coming forth, many of which you probably have no idea about because your base premise is that nothing original comes from the Filipino. Go out and educate yourself on this matter, at least.

        I will say this for the last time, Benigno. Yes, the Filipino people have just as much originality and positive, strong traits (or stereotypes, like those you’ve presented) as any race, culture or nation in the whole world. We also have our shortcomings, much as any race have in the world. We all have much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of, in the larger scheme of things. If you studied the annals of history, you would know that.

        I am also a disillusioned Filipino in many ways, but I don’t choose to disparage Filipinos in the way that you have done here and certainly take the trouble to educate myself before I accuse them of lacking this or that.

        The way I see it, you are stating that Filipinos are pretentious in reacting over this issue. That we forget anyway, that we are not probably smart enough to recognize and remember wrongdoings or that we just simply let things slide by. Well, that’s apparently not the case. And what makes you think that just because many of the advocacies and atrocities alike are out of coverage for the moment, that people have stopped fighting for and against them?

        Many of us recognize what Sotto did wrong. What makes this such a circus is not the people’s reactions to it but Sotto’s further mishandling of it. He and his CoS, in particular, gives such ridiculous press releases that it’s almost hilarious, waiting to see what they will come up with next. But no, I don’t think the people will forget this soon. If even the taxi driver I spoke to just recently knows that he did something wrong and the nature of what he did, then he’s in a lot of trouble.

        1. Nads,

          Glad to know that there are still Filipinos here who sees things your way. It’s not like when you abhor your kind day in day out, you’ll give birth to foreigners, hehehe.

        2. Hi Trosp,

          If [parts of] his speech had not been not plagiarized in the first place, then he may have actually had an argument in the first place. The chief complaint of the people whose words he took is that they felt they were misrepresented. Even the daughter of Helen’s former doctor spoke up.

          Sotto had four main arguments, all of which I can deem as having their valid points but which, in my opinion, Sotto [mis]uses simply as a blanket opposition to the Bill.

          He cites, first of all, Article II, Section 12, of the Philippine Constitution provides: “The state shall EQUALLY protect the life of the mother and THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN FROM CONCEPTION.”

          This in itself is something that gives us food for thought, for there are many instances when the State cannot equally both protect mother and child. And it presents the question of those who got pregnant by marital rape, sexual abuse or even incest. If a 12-year old child was impregnated by her own father or uncle, who in their right mind would force the girl to bring the pregnancy full-term, insisting that every life is a gift? Two days ago, there was a news of two siblings, 14 and 16 years of age, who were drugged by their father and raped, while their mother held them down to prevent struggle. How sure are we that these things aren’t happening elsewhere – maybe just along the corner of our own street? And if the girls had gotten pregnant, would they still have had to be criminally penalized if it so happens they cannot bear to go through the whole pregnancy? Remember too that we are speaking here of minors for whom birth can mean death.

          And what if, let’s say, the mother cannot potentially carry the pregnancy to full term because of a disease or illness that may harm the baby? This is especially the case of ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilized egg does not implant in the uterus. In many cases, it seems to be the fallopian tube. This type of pregnancy will most likely result in the death of the mother (and the baby as a result). But if you read Sec. 7 of House Bill No. 13, Protection of the Unborn Child Act, then you will see that perhaps even if the mother is already facing imminent danger or is actually already dying as a result of this type of pregnancy, then perhaps no one can still lift a finger to help her because they will all get penalized anyway. And so, you face the prospect of losing two lives.

          Just last month, too, in the Dominican Republic, a pregnant teenager with cancer (leukemia) died after being refused treatment on the grounds that it may harm the baby, stating that this position was taken mainly owing to the strict abortion laws in the country.

          I would say that his premise 1 and 2 are already fundamentally flawed from this standpoint. He automatically assumes that all cases of pregnancies are in the best interest of both mother and child. But these are issues that one grapples with, honestly and extensively. And when you take someone else’s words without actually taking the time to even connect with them, to do your own search further but only to make your own advocacy seem valid,

          He does not even bother to cite the specific provisions which he opposes. The Bill has many redeeming qualities but I, for one, don’t agree with the overpopulation premise. It is actually our non-sustainable practices that are causing us to have lack of resources and not our growth in numbers. Also, poverty – extensive study will show you that poverty is not as simple as it seems. Many people, who otherwise would have had a decent way of life, are made poor by other people’s greed and wanton destruction.

          I am also predisposed towards medicines, in general, and so know there is merit in the arguments against its usage. I also think that the Bill has devoted just a little bit too much attention on the contraception side of the proposal.

          But if Sotto had wanted to be credible: First, he should not have stolen ideas and passed them off as his own; Second, he would have wrestled with the ‘demons’ that issues like these invariably bring up; Third, he would not have made sweeping arguments against the Bill as a whole but would have stated those provisions/premises of the Bill he was against; Fourth, he should also have shown that he at least had taken a look at the other side of the fence, even interacting with the grassroots level before presuming that what he is advocating is for the good of all.

          Now, just a quick follow-up.

          His premise 3, which is that it violates the financial independence of local government; and

          Premise 4, that it violates Filipino culture and values.

          Is he kidding us? I don’t agree with the enforced setting aside of budget for contraceptives but I think these LGUs have had too free a hand when it comes to the budget. They talk about building schools instead with the proposed budget for condoms. Hypocrisy. If they really were going to do that, they would have done it a long time ago. Every month I see thousands of my hard-earned money disappearing down the drain, nothing new in the Philippines, and the same old type of bureaucracy. What if we advocated for our financial autonomy instead? I don’t mind paying taxes if it’s used properly. If it’s being stolen, that’s another matter.

          And 4 – really now? He dares speak for Filipino culture and values? And just for the record, a lot of things which have been introduced to us can be seen as violating Filipino culture and values. Well then, if that is one of his central advocacy, then perhaps he should not single out the RH Bill?

          Just my thoughts on what Sotto says are his arguments against the Bill which, in my opinion, does not take a large portion of reality into account.

        3. I should say that’s “predisposed AGAINST medicines.”

          Also, the case I mentioned (of the 14 and 16 year old kids, drugged with shabu) took place for MONTHS starting from last year and was only found out and ended with the father’s arrest just recently.

        4. Hi Nads,

          Thanks for the time in replying to my curiosity. I’m a Catholic and my stand on RH Bill is the same as what I’m taught and brought up as a Christian – life preservation.

          As a prelude to my comment, the Church is not exactly interfering with the RH Bill’s implementation. The bill is just against the bible’s teachings and one would not expect the Church to just meekly agree with that RH Bill with the life preservation not explicitly spelled-out.

          Take note that there was no issue with this family planning with the Church before this bill was introduced.

          The way I see it, since majority here in the Philippines are Catholics, it is that bill that is interfering with what the bible has been teaching – preservation of human lives. (A rejoinder for your item 4 premise).

          (Perhaps, some of them, particularly those prominent ones, have been emotionally aggressive in defending their religious stand and so with those pro RH Bill.)

          I’m more inclined to adapt the Catholic’s traditional value or moral absolutism than moral relativism (aka political correctness or as others would call it the cost and benefit morality.)

          Basically, House Bill No. 17, also known as the proposed “Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008,” covers the following areas:

          — information and access to natural and modern family planning;
          — maternal, infant and child health and nutrition;
          — promotion of breast feeding;
          — prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;
          — adolescent and youth health; prevention and management of reproductive tract infections,
          HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases;
          — elimination of violence against women; counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive
          health;
          — treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers;
          — male involvement and participation in reproductive health;
          — prevention and treatment of infertility; and
          — reproductive health education for the youth.

          Except for the last item, which of the above are not yet in place? (I’m just wondering why contraceptives were not explicitly mentioned.)

          And for the reasons of discontinuing/preventing the life of unborn child (In order of significance based on how I see them):

          (Pro-choice advocates – they don’t want to be labeled as pro-abortion and will not use the term unborn child. It’s just a fetus.)

          — how a child would change their lifestyle
          — not ready for responsibility
          — blaming the relationship problem
          — failed birth control method (which accounts 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant in USA.)
          — they have all the children they wanted
          — mother’s health
          — pregnancy resulting from rape

          I’m also not buying that this RH Bill will help us in tackling poverty problem. He he he… Over population as a cause of poverty is a myth IMO. It’s the poor governance IMO again.

          I have this story of not a rape victim but of a mother who cannot potentially carry the pregnancy to full term because of a disease or illness that may harm the baby:

          “More than 24 years ago, she and her husband Bob were serving as missionaries to the Philippines and praying for a fifth child. Pam contracted amoebic dysentery, an infection of the intestine caused by a parasite found in contaminated food or drink. She went into a coma and was treated with strong antibiotics before they discovered she was pregnant.

          Doctors urged her to abort the baby for her own safety and told her that the medicines had caused irreversible damage to her baby. She refused the abortion and cited her Christian faith as the reason for her hope that her son would be born without the devastating disabilities physicians predicted.

          Pam said the doctors didn’t think of it as a life, they thought of it as a mass of fetal tissue.

          While pregnant, Pam nearly lost their baby four times but refused to consider abortion. She recalled making a pledge to God with her husband: If you will give us a son, we’ll name him Timothy and we’ll make him a preacher.

          Pam ultimately spent the last two months of her pregnancy in bed and eventually gave birth to a healthy baby boy August 14, 1987.

          Pam’s youngest son is indeed a preacher. He preaches in prisons, makes hospital visits, and serves with his father’s ministry in the Philippines.

          He also plays football. Pam’s son is TIM TEBOW.”

          And for the cost of RH Bill:

          “Cayetano admitted during interpellations on Senate Bill 2865 that the Department of Health (DOH) had asked for P13.7 billion to implement the RH bill for the year 2012 alone – an amount bigger than the individual budgets of the departments of energy, finance, foreign affairs, justice, labor, science, tourism, and trade. The figure also dwarfs the budgets proposed for the Office of the President and Congress, as well as for the entire Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

          The revelation of the huge RH budget is the latest in the string of exposes to hound the pro-RH lobby, which had earlier been found to be using outdated data on maternal deaths and abortion. RH proponents had long been saying that the budget would only be P3 billion annually.”

          My oh my, me with my polluted mind, I can see where this proponents of the bill in the congress is going. It’s a JACKPOT!

          (In 2010, the government spent P400 million for the purchase of natural and artificial means of family planning, including two million condoms for free distribution to the public. Where is this thing now?)

          One must also recognize this:

          “There are lots of these RH Bill proponents in the congress who have no compunction in terminating lives of unborn children and similarly in the guise of the cost and benefit morality, and they are the same ones who promote such ”compassionate” ideas and argues fiercely against the death penalty on the following grounds: 1) that an innocent could be put to death and/or 2) the law should not be sanctioning the killing of another, no matter how guilty, no matter how gruesome the crime that was committed.”

          And this one:

          The way those proponents of the bill are explaining, in order for the RH Bill to be easily (and at no cost) to everybody including those grade five pupils, provided with the bills are some mandates like compelling employers “to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to its employees” and the bill subjects employees “to both imprisonment and/or fine, for every time that” the employee fails to comply with the requirement. (I might not be updated, nevertheless, this is what in Lagman’s mind when he crafted the bill.)

          Heh, what can we do. They are politicians.

        5. Don’t forget that the bill will also “penalize any person who maliciously engage in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.”

        6. Hi Trosp,

          I’ll get to some of your points later but I don’t think I would agree that most Filipinos here are Catholics. Sure, the demographics may state that most people would profess Catholicism as their faith but strictly Catholic in the sense of the word? I don’t think so.

          Furthermore, not all Catholics are just going along with the traditional values espoused by the Church. There are actually quite a lot of Catholics who unconditionally support the Bill. So never mind the nuances – for them, the Bill is ok as it is.

          My only beef with the Church interfering in things like this is that there seems to be the notion that the Church’s value is the only one to be taken into account in things like this. I mean, I don’t see the Muslims, the Buddhists or other religious groups imposing their belief as to how the law should be implemented. But they are constituents too. And, let us not forget, it is stated in the Constitution as well (since they are quoting that for their support as well):

          The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II, Section 6)

          Inviolable. That means that the Church, in the strictest sense, MUST stay out of the affairs of the State. But you know, the reality is that they don’t even intervene for moral reasons alone. Let’s face it: the Church uses clout in interfering directly with Philippine politics, as in this Inquirer news last May:

          “Ahead of the senatorial elections, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines appealed to voters Tuesday to withdraw their support for politicians who are in favor of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, a report from Radyo Inquirer 990AM said.”

          (2012 May 15, Aguilon, Inquirer, CBCP to voters: Don’t vote for Pro-RH Bill politicians)

          Who is trespassing whom, then? If they’re going to quote the Constitution, might as well follow it unconditionally too.

          Also, just as much as there are cases such as the one you mentioned, there are also cases where the pregnancy can really and do result in the death of the mother (and the child). You cannot impose the same belief or the same decisions on every mother or every person who goes through the same situation. And especially not where the pregnancy is a result of great travesty.

          I would not call myself a pro-abortion person, but I believe that unless confronted with the situation itself, we cannot claim moral absolutism as we are only human beings. We may be moral absolutist when it comes to one issue and yet be totally clueless about what to do in another.

          I think for many of the staunch pro-lifers who insist that anything else other than bringing a pregnancy to full-term is a sin and a failure of one’s moral duty, they need to have been placed in the same situation or at least be in a position where they can potentially go through the same fate – because it’s hard to get it, really, unless you’ve been there.

          In this case, you may need to be a woman for whom sexual abuse, rape and pregnancy are very possible realities. It is always easier to criticize when you know that it can never happen to you; when you have never experienced it beforehand; and when the hardest thing you need to do is think about what is really right or wrong for you, but may not necessarily have to live through it personally.

          I am a woman and one who has weathered many tough storms. I know what I say.

          I’m not advocating for abortion. But I believe that the State needs to reconsider its stand of penalizing abortion, without legal recourse. And with regards to the RH Bill, there is not even any mention of abortion there. If the likes of Sotto are worried about contraceptives being abortifacients, then they can go ahead and screen them or something. But I don’t believe this because every year how many medicines are approved for the use of Filipino people, the adverse effects of which are also not known to the public? If we truly aim to protect life, then that will mean stopping ALL practices that diminish and endanger life. But the way I see it, food, medicines, and even business practices that threaten life abound – and where are these supposed “pro-lifers” then?

          Morality, IMHO, is not something that is the monopoly of one religion or any group for that matter. Even Jesus stated that there were only two great commandments [from them on]. To love God, and to love one’s neighbor. That’s it. If we “were” to be strictly “moral” about anything, it would be to ensure that everything we said, thought or did stems from love of God or neighbor. Anything that deviates from that would be immoral.

          For the record, I don’t subscribe anymore to organized religions – not after seeing the hypocrisy of people in power who, from the comfort of their positions, perpetrate atrocities and crimes against other people while forcing other people to agree to what they think is right and wrong, even making their obedience a condition of God’s love for them. It is a travesty, much as it would be a lack of delicadeza and a total disrespect for anyone to comment on your parents’ love for you, i.e. whether or not you deserve it and whether or not they love you or not, based on how they think you should deserve your parents’ love.

        7. Hi Nads,

          Let me deconstruct your comment. My apology if it will look like I’m nitpicking.

          “I’ll get to some of your points later but I don’t think I would agree that most Filipinos here are Catholics. Sure, the demographics may state that most people would profess Catholicism as their faith but strictly Catholic in the sense of the word? I don’t think so.
          Furthermore, not all Catholics are just going along with the traditional values espoused by the Church. There are actually quite a lot of Catholics who unconditionally support the Bill. So never mind the nuances – for them, the Bill is ok as it is.”


          What I’m implying is majority of Filipinos are Catholics and I can tell you that all the churches I’ve seen in Metro Manila are always filled with worshippers every Sunday mass.

          Whether they subscribe to traditional values, that would be another matter.

          I agree with you that quite a lot of them unconditionally support the RH Bill and I can tell you that a lot of their knowledge about RH Bill is it is about population control to tackle the poverty problem.

          “My only beef with the Church interfering in things like this is that there seems to be the notion that the Church’s value is the only one to be taken into account in things like this.”


          As I’ve mentioned in my previous comment, family planning is not an issue with the Church until this RH Bill. As the Church see it, it’s the government, whose elected officials are being sworn into the office with their hand on top of the bible, who are interfering with the bible’s teaching on preservation of human lives.

          The RH Bill proponents are ambiguous with the bill specially with the effect of birth control pills. As I’ve mentioned before, 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant in USA I can’t find any data in the internet for the Philippines.

          They’re even misleading us on the budget it will require.

          “I mean, I don’t see the Muslims, the Buddhists or other religious groups imposing their belief as to how the law should be implemented.”


          Have you heard of the sharia? In Muslim Mindanao, sharia is the one they use and not our laws based on our constitution.

          You read this in newspapers in Europe: Muslims Demand Balkanization of England & Implementation of Sharia Law.

          The same with Thailand, Buddhist also wants their influence in their country’s abortion law.

          Iglesia ni Cristo vote as dictated by their highest minister.

          “And, let us not forget, it is stated in the Constitution as well (since they are quoting that for their support as well):

          The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II, Section 6)

          Inviolable. That means that the Church, in the strictest sense, MUST stay out of the affairs of the State. But you know, the reality is that they don’t even intervene for moral reasons alone. Let’s face it: the Church uses clout in interfering directly with Philippine politics, as in this Inquirer news last May:”


          I would take it as a law for the government not to interfere with Church affairs instead of the other way around. A thought different from yours.

          This is already happening in US of A – no more religious expression on any public places such as praying (even in public cemetery), display of cross, or even the display of the Ten Commandments unless the commandment with the word “God” is excluded.

          “Ahead of the senatorial elections, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines appealed to voters Tuesday to withdraw their support for politicians who are in favor of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, a report from Radyo Inquirer 990AM said.”


          So what is wrong with that? It is just an appeal . Remember that freedom OF religion can be either by an individual or by a collective group of people.

          “Also, just as much as there are cases such as the one you mentioned, there are also cases where the pregnancy can really and do result in the death of the mother (and the child). You cannot impose the same belief or the same decisions on every mother or every person who goes through the same situation. And especially not where the pregnancy is a result of great travesty.”


          We can come up with cases on either sides but I can consider them exemptions rather than the rule.

          “I would not call myself a pro-abortion person, but I believe that unless confronted with the situation itself, we cannot claim moral absolutism as we are only human beings. We may be moral absolutist when it comes to one issue and yet be totally clueless about what to do in another.”


          RELIGION ALWAYS COMES WITH SACRIFICE.

          “I think for many of the staunch pro-lifers who insist that anything else other than bringing a pregnancy to full-term is a sin and a failure of one’s moral duty, they need to have been placed in the same situation or at least be in a position where they can potentially go through the same fate – because it’s hard to get it, really, unless you’ve been there.

          In this case, you may need to be a woman for whom sexual abuse, rape and pregnancy are very possible realities. It is always easier to criticize when you know that it can never happen to you; when you have never experienced it beforehand; and when the hardest thing you need to do is think about what is really right or wrong for you, but may not necessarily have to live through it personally.

          I am a woman and one who has weathered many tough storms. I know what I say.”


          What if I’m also a woman who is a pro-life. Will this argument still be valid?

          “I’m not advocating for abortion. But I believe that the State needs to reconsider its stand of penalizing abortion, without legal recourse. And with regards to the RH Bill, there is not even any mention of abortion there. If the likes of Sotto are worried about contraceptives being abortifacients, then they can go ahead and screen them or something. But I don’t believe this because every year how many medicines are approved for the use of Filipino people, the adverse effects of which are also not known to the public?”


          54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant in USA! I don’t have a data, but the way I see it, this is much much more than those who elected abortion to get rid of their unborn child due to rape.

          “If we truly aim to protect life, then that will mean stopping ALL practices that diminish and endanger life. But the way I see it, food, medicines, and even business practices that threaten life abound – and where are these supposed “pro-lifers” then?”


          What is needed is good governance. Not population regulation.

          “Morality, IMHO, is not something that is the monopoly of one religion or any group for that matter. Even Jesus stated that there were only two great commandments [from them on]. To love God, and to love one’s neighbor. That’s it. If we “were” to be strictly “moral” about anything, it would be to ensure that everything we said, thought or did stems from love of God or neighbor. Anything that deviates from that would be immoral.”

          —–
          You’ret over simplify the word of God. I won’t even ask where did you get that one.
          —-

        8. Trosp,

          To your point about Catholicism here in the Philippines, what I am saying is that one cannot simply say that majority of the Filipinos are Catholic and that thus, the Church is speaking on behalf of what it considers “Catholic values” and its preservation when they interfere in this way. They presume to be speaking on behalf of the faithful when really, they are so out of touch with them.

          Even within the Church, there is a split as there are priests who would also advocate for the Bill are also present. So who then is this “Church” that wants so badly to have its will followed?

          In this sense, it matters who chooses to adhere to traditional values and the fact remains that the number of people in Churches do not necessarily indicate how many are really “Catholics”. I’m not sure if you’ve even heard of what happened in Baguio with Fr. Ilano who turned out pro-RH Bill parishioners.

          And just how out of touch are they?

          “A 1993 survey of women aged 15 to 49 in 1993 found that over 96% were familiar with one or more methods of family planning, including modern contraceptive methods, and that over 90 percent knew where to obtain the pill, 80 percent the IUD, condom and female sterilization, and 70 percent male sterilization. Of the married women surveyed, 40% were practising some form of birth control, most often dispensed by government sources. Only 7% were using methods accepted by Catholic teaching,35 and of the non-users, less than 5% were “opposed to family planning or cited religion as a reason for not using contraception.”

          Philippines National Statistics Office, National Demographic Survey, 1993 (May, 1994) p. 39-43 in The Protection of Conscience Project

          Also, as stated by Lagman:

          “He [Lagman] cites recent surveys showing majority of Catholics favoring a reproductive health law, requiring government to teach family planning to the youth, and the government distributing legal contraceptives like condoms, pills and IUDs. Religion, says Lagman, ranks only 9th out of 10 reasons why women do not use contraception. That a Catholic can still be a good Catholic and use family planning methods outside the only church-approved natural family planning methods has been expressed by a number of faculty and staff members of the Catholic institution Ateneo de Manila University, a position also held by University of the Philippines academicians. Lagman is himself a Catholic, and goes to mass when he can.”

          Torrevilas, Domini M., “Lagman’s commitment to reproductive health.” Phil Star, 28 February, 2009 in The Protection of Conscience Project
          ————-

          Really, there was no issue with the Church on family planning? Last I checked, Flavier was called an “agent of Satan” for distributing condoms. And in the 90s, the Church has been pointed out as the reason for why efforts at family planning were undermined (NSO).

          ————-

          I’m sorry but why would they care whether elected officials interfere with any of the Bible’s teachings at all? The officials did not swear to uphold the teachings of the Bible.

          The oath of the President, for instance, goes:

          “I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.” [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].” (Article 7 Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution)

          Now, let us not get too hung up on the “So help me God” part because it doesn’t automatically qualify God as the Catholics understand Him to be. The important thing here is that nowhere, in the this oath, does it state that an elected official has to uphold the teachings of any one religion, let alone the Bible’s.

          ————————

          Yes, Trosp. I have heard of the sharia. But I wonder if you even know of the cultural and historical reasons why Muslims are allowed to follow it? Maybe you need to look at models of countries such as Indonesia and Turkey to better understand how it operates.

          The Sharia law which you speak of, codified by Presidential Decree No. 1083, was a move then to cater to :

          “the intense desire of the New Society to strengthen all the ethno-linguistic communities in the Philippines within the context of their respective ways of life in order to bring about a cumulative result satisfying the requirements of national solidarity and social justice;”

          The Catholic church is not an ethno-linguistic community.

          And even then, to fully appreciate why this decree came into existence, you would have to understand first the era of colonization (14th-19th c.) which took place in Asia and also the nation-state project that came about especially after the Cold War. Then you would know why the government finally conceded to these measures. It was not because of morality issues but for political ones.

          Also, you give the examples of Buddhists in Thailand. Again, it would be best if you studied first the traditional ties between the Buddhist and the Thai monarchy before making any comparison. Much like here in the Philippines, it’s always been a cycle of financial and political concession between the “Church” and State. Thailand has also been one of the countries where the main religion is Theravada Buddhism. It would make sense then, for the Buddhists to have a stronger voice there when it comes to morality and religion. But lest we forget, Buddhism is not even a religion. Even the Dalai Lama, a Buddhist, states that religion is perhaps something we can do without.
          ————————–

          To your point about the separation of Church and State – no, it is not my interpretation. We’re talking here of the law. This was created in 1987. It is a law and such, it is a civil, not a religious affair. So the law was meant for the Church – any Church – to stay out of civil affairs or to stop unduly influencing it.

          Also, why assume that the only Church referred to is the Roman Catholic Church? Again, herein lies the arrogance of the Church in thinking that it is the only religious voice that matters in the country. As I have stated, Catholics are not the only constituents of this country. People who adhere to other religions or who may have no religion at all are entitled to have their views heard and taken into account as well.

          —————————

          What is wrong with the CBCP’s appeal? Because it is not their place to tell the people who to vote or not to vote. Let us not kid ourselves here. From time immemorial the Church as threatened those who challenge it with excommunication. Even our President has been faced with the threat of excommunication. Let us also not kid ourselves that the Church does not link following it’s orders to promises of eternal salvation. But it is not for the Church to blackmail people with doubts of their own morality or obedience to God’s will based on who they do or do not vote. That is the deeper part of the issue.

          ————————-

          Religion always comes with a sacrifice but we cannot impose our own sacrifices on others. Their life is not ours. We are not them, therefore we cannot presume that they take up (or drop) religion for the same purposes that we do. They may be equally capable of sacrifices that those with a narrow view of religion could never even fathom doing.

          That is the fault of moral absolutism – thinking that one knows what is right and how things should be. But morality can never be absolute because human life is so different that if you had been raised in another culture, you would have a different idea of what is moral. In other cultures, it is moral for a young woman who was raped to marry the rapist in order to make amends. Here in the Philippines, anyone suggesting that would be hung by the neck.

          ———————

          Yes, even if you are a woman who is pro-life, this point – that you have to be a woman to also understand what abortion, pregnancy, rape, abuse means – will still be valid. In fact, you may even understand it even more. The way I see it, you keep arguing for why things should be all-white. But what I am trying to tell you is why, in many cases, it can be black and why it can be just as valid that way.

          In the case of Pam, there is nothing wrong with her bringing her pregnancy full-term as she even brought up a pastor in the process. NO problem. But the other side has all sorts of problems when it comes to people who have to make the opposite decision when they cannot even fully comprehend what it is to be in their position in the first place.

          I could also argue that many pregnancies who came full-term brought about people who killed and causes sufferings for millions. Think Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, or even your mass murderers, serial rapists, those who peddle children’s organs, drug syndicates, etc. But no one seems to see this when they argue unconditionally that all life is a gift, that everyone deserves to live. Well, guess what? These people were given the right to live and they denied that very same right to others, often in brutal ways, when the time came. Again, I am not saying that the carrying a pregnancy full-term is wrong. I am just pointing out a fundamental flaw in those who try to instill guilt, stating that unborn children could have great potential, just like Tim Tebow in Pam’s case.

          ———————–

          USA is an entirely different culture. And yes, where you get the data matters. And also, how can you be sure about the data of those who choose to terminate pregnancies due to rape? Do we even know the true statistics of those who are victims of rape? And “elect”? Would you even have the slightest idea of how difficult it is to be a victim of sexual abuse, and then get pregnant on top of it?

          ———————-

          As I said, I am with you that we don’t need population control. But what I am pointing out is that I don’t understand the hypocritical nature of going all-out against the RH Bill when these same people support other practices that diminish the quality of or threaten life. Sure, rah, rah, rah, no to RH Bill, it is anti-life. But many of them would not have a problem with taking a closer look at vaccines, various medicines, illegal logging, non-stop land development that robs us of natural resources and spaces to grow our food, etc.

          Good governance, sure. But what does that mean for you? To me, it means that we stop sacrificing the environment for the greed of a few people. It means we advocate for ALL of life, not just human life. Because human life does not exist in isolation.

          ———————-

          Yes, the word of God is supposed to be simple. It’s men, with all their dogmas, decrees, and interpretation that complicates it. You see that so many times in the different factions of religions so much so that religion no longer unites but further divides; no longer leads to comprehension but to further confusion, with each side insisting it is right.

          Where did I get it? It’s in Luke 10:27. Look it up. It was in response to those who were testing Jesus again on what He thinks is the Law and how it should be interpreted. And maybe Jesus, thinking (yet again) of how men tend to complicate moral laws and what they consider as transgressions against God, spoke these words.

        9. @Nads

          I’m very grateful to have an exchange of opinions with you.

          @Comment Readers

          Please bear with my rejoinder to Nads comment. It might be insightful or inciteful but just like they say during the older time “ride-on baby!”

          (Enclosed in parenthesis are Nad’s comment.)

          “To your point about Catholicism here in the Philippines, what I am saying is that one cannot simply say that majority of the Filipinos are Catholic and that thus, the Church is speaking on behalf of what it considers “Catholic values” and its preservation when they interfere in this way. They presume to be speaking on behalf of the faithful when really, they are so out of touch with them.”

          —-
          Majority of Filipinos are Catholics and it is true.

          The Church is speaking in behalf of the FAITHFUL is true.

          They are trying to get in touch with those whose judgment are based on moral relativism (cost and benefit moral), the modern Catholics they call themselves, is also true.

          “Even within the Church, there is a split as there are priests who would also advocate for the Bill are also present. So who then is this “Church” that wants so badly to have its will followed? “


          Is the split a 50/50 percent?

          Or something that is not even close to 1% in favor of those RH Bill skeptics?

          My number would be the latter.

          How about you?

          “And just how out of touch are they?

          “A 1993 survey of women aged 15 to 49 in 1993 found that over 96% were familiar with one or more methods of family planning, including modern contraceptive methods, and that over 90 percent knew where to obtain the pill, 80 percent the IUD, condom and female sterilization, and 70 percent male sterilization. Of the married women surveyed, 40% were practising some form of birth control, most often dispensed by government sources. Only 7% were using methods accepted by Catholic teaching,35 and of the non-users, less than 5% were “opposed to family planning or cited religion as a reason for not using contraception.””


          And how many of those surveyed are Catholics?

          Well, I can answer that – majority of our population are Catholics therefore they could be substantial Catholics in them.

          And my next question is how many of them are faithful and how many are modern Catholics?

          ““Also, as stated by Lagman:

          “He [Lagman] cites recent surveys showing majority of Catholics favoring a reproductive health law, requiring government to teach family planning to the youth, and the government distributing legal contraceptives like condoms, pills and IUDs. Religion, says Lagman, ranks only 9th out of 10 reasons why women do not use contraception. “


          And what is the primary reason for their favoring a reproductive health law, did they asked the surveyed Catholics something like –

          “54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant, do you favor contraceptives as a way to limit the size of your family?

          Or –

          “The reproductive law is about family planning to tackle poverty, do you favor the use of contraceptives as a way to limit the size of your family?”

          Maybe you can expound the methodology they have used in that survey.

          “That a Catholic can still be a good Catholic and use family planning methods outside the only church-approved natural family planning methods has been expressed by a number of faculty and staff members of the Catholic institution Ateneo de Manila University, a position also held by University of the Philippines academicians. Lagman is himself a Catholic, and goes to mass when he can.”


          How is their survey on the faculty of San Sebastian College?

          Or maybe the parochial high school where my youngest kid is studying?

          Ateneo and UP – the two contesting universities for the most progressive- liberal education institution in our country!

          They’re even being labeled as the top indoctrination universities for progressive wannabes.

          “Really, there was no issue with the Church on family planning? Last I checked, Flavier was called an “agent of Satan” for distributing condoms. And in the 90s, the Church has been pointed out as the reason for why efforts at family planning were undermined (NSO).”


          And how do they always call the RH Bill skeptics – fanatics! It’s everywhere.

          We are not in a perfect world where we can expect everything is ideal.

          Put up a very good argument and they will whine – it’s a plagiarism!

          (BTW, almost all my comment about this issue are plagiarisms. You can sue me – no hard feelings.)

          “I’m sorry but why would they care whether elected officials interfere with any of the Bible’s teachings at all? The officials did not swear to uphold the teachings of the Bible.”


          Then why they can’t categorically say that they don’t care whatever it is in the bible’s teachings and declare that their judgment is based on the cost and benefit of any moral issue.

          Make a declaration that they are the modern Catholics who don’t agree with the antiquated bible teachings. Better yet, renounce Catholicism and switch to more comfort-zone friendly religion.

          It’s not hard according to those who have done it.

          “The oath of the President, for instance, goes:

          “I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.” [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].” (Article 7 Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution)

          Now, let us not get too hung up on the “So help me God” part because it doesn’t automatically qualify God as the Catholics understand Him to be. The important thing here is that nowhere, in the this oath, does it state that an elected official has to uphold the teachings of any one religion, let alone the Bible’s.”


          So why will they still like to be known being sworn in into office with their hand on top of the bible? They can forgo it based on their belief.

          It’s not mandatory.

          So why???

          “Yes, Trosp. I have heard of the sharia. But I wonder if you even know of the cultural and historical reasons why Muslims are allowed to follow it? Maybe you need to look at models of countries such as Indonesia and Turkey to better understand how it operates.”
          I’m not lecturing about sharia. I’m telling you that Muslims want it to be their own law instead of the law of the land where they set their foot in.
          “The Catholic church is not an ethno-linguistic community.

          And even then, to fully appreciate why this decree came into existence, you would have to understand first the era of colonization (14th-19th c.) which took place in Asia and also the nation-state project that came about especially after the Cold War. Then you would know why the government finally conceded to these measures. It was not because of morality issues but for political ones.

          Also, you give the examples of Buddhists in Thailand. Again, it would be best if you studied first the traditional ties between the Buddhist and the Thai monarchy before making any comparison. Much like here in the Philippines, it’s always been a cycle of financial and political concession between the “Church” and State. Thailand has also been one of the countries where the main religion is Theravada Buddhism. It would make sense then, for the Buddhists to have a stronger voice there when it comes to morality and religion. But lest we forget, Buddhism is not even a religion. Even the Dalai Lama, a Buddhist, states that religion is perhaps something we can do without.”


          Your previous comment:

          “I mean, I don’t see the Muslims, the Buddhists or other religious groups imposing their belief as to how the law should be implemented. “

          I only answered that one.

          BTW –

          “The freedom of religion clause of the 1987 Constitution is found in Article III, Section 5. It states,

          “No law shall be passed respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

          The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.

          No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

          “To your point about the separation of Church and State – no, it is not my interpretation. We’re talking here of the law. This was created in 1987. It is a law and such, it is a civil, not a religious affair. So the law was meant for the Church – any Church – to stay out of civil affairs or to stop unduly influencing it.

          Also, why assume that the only Church referred to is the Roman Catholic Church? Again, herein lies the arrogance of the Church in thinking that it is the only religious voice that matters in the country. As I have stated, Catholics are not the only constituents of this country. People who adhere to other religions or who may have no religion at all are entitled to have their views heard and taken into account as well.”


          As I’ve been telling you, the government is not obligated to do whatever the Church is clamoring them to do.

          But the government can always do, through enactment of laws, to interfere with religion’s affairs.

          I’m just confused why are you emphasizing the Church is the aggressor in this kind of situation.

          Don’t tell me these politicians are scared of being ex-communicated!

          “What is wrong with the CBCP’s appeal? Because it is not their place to tell the people who to vote or not to vote. Let us not kid ourselves here. From time immemorial the Church as threatened those who challenge it with excommunication. Even our President has been faced with the threat of excommunication. Let us also not kid ourselves that the Church does not link following it’s orders to promises of eternal salvation. But it is not for the Church to blackmail people with doubts of their own morality or obedience to God’s will based on who they do or do not vote. That is the deeper part of the issue.”


          The Church is not blackmailing anybody. It will tell you the reason why a religious sanction has to be taken vis-à-vis an offense against the doctrine for those who are Catholics.

          The Church will however admonish an errant to the fullest extent of the laws that govern the Catholic religion.

          And there is always the provision for a repentance.

          The Church will not put up voting places to check and verify who the flock has voted.

          “Religion always comes with a sacrifice but we cannot impose our own sacrifices on others. Their life is not ours.


          That is my comment for those Catholics who always prefer to be in their comfort zone. This moral relativism.

          They use religion not for religious purposes.

          I’m always reminded of the “no pain, no glory” hype.

          “We are not them, therefore we cannot presume that they take up (or drop) religion for the same purposes that we do. They may be equally capable of sacrifices that those with a narrow view of religion could never even fathom doing.

          That is the fault of moral absolutism – thinking that one knows what is right and how things should be. But morality can never be absolute because human life is so different that if you had been raised in another culture, you would have a different idea of what is moral. In other cultures, it is moral for a young woman who was raped to marry the rapist in order to make amends. Here in the Philippines, anyone suggesting that would be hung by the neck.


          Catholics are not forcing anybody to be a Catholic. Anybody can leave the faith ANYTIME they want without any obligation.

          IMO, moral absolutism is the absolute standard of right and wrong. The traditional value.

          For moral relativists, the concept of sin – sin is something that is primitively biblical.

          For moral relativists, unfairness compels one to sin.

          Example:

          For most or some of them, Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung are not morally depraved murderers, but men driven to their immoral acts by the injustices by people whom they saw as superior to them.

          Abbu Sayyaf due to poverty.

          Cheers!

        10. Hi Trosp,

          I feel that I have already presented the facts and the people can decide for themselves based on their experience as well what they feel to be true.

          Just as a final point:

          1. I would agree that majority are Catholics, but only in the faith that they profess. Strictly speaking, not everyone adheres to the practices, the beliefs and even the viewpoints that is required of a Catholic. Therefore, even if one states that majority are Catholics, that does not necessarily mean that the Church speaks for them.

          2. It does not matter what the percentage of the split is. The fact is, there is a split and there is very real polarization within the Church on this issue. The fact that the percentage may be tilted towards one side or the other does not subdue it’s relevance.

          3. Trosp, if you state that majority of the Filipinos are Catholics, then it stands to reason that a good number of those surveyed – in fact, majority – would also be Catholics. I have no wish to further delve into the actual number (the info is just as available to you) but I think my conjecture is a logical one, also given your premise.

          4. It does not matter what their reason is (for supporting these contraceptives, counter to the Church teachings). The point is that they do, and so if majority of the Catholics favor these types of RH measures, then it disproves the fact that the Catholic Church speaks on behalf of its constituents and only proves further that it is out of touch with what its followers either want or need. Also, the reason the Catholic faithful choose these types of contraceptives should be up to the Church to find out as they are the ones going head-to-head with these contraceptives. They are the ones who need to find out what their “flock” needs and why their flock does not seem to heed them.

          5. Ateneo de Manila has been highlighted in this survey because even though they are Catholic, in this sense, there are many that still hold views that oppose the Church. To date, even La Salle already has 45 professors supporting the bill (and who knows how many more students). And one of the earliest to also issue a statement was the Letran Student Council who stated that even if they are in a Dominican institution that “does not recognize the RH Bill”, they are choosing to take a stance that is different and have clearly stated they are PRO-RH. I do not know about Sebastian College but the above examples only goes to show that either in public or in private, one is not deterred from taking an opposing view just because they are in a religious university/school or establishment – that it does not automatically mean they will adhere to the “official” stand.

          6. I was just disputing the fact that the Church never had an issue with family planning prior to this RH Bill debate. Apparently, they’ve already had a beef with it a long time ago or else they would not be calling the likes of Flavier as such. And there’s no smoke if there’s no fire. That the Church is being pointed out as one of the reasons why family planning was undermined even as early as the 90s means that they were already against it, just not at this scale yet because here, the passage of the RH Bill is a very real possibility and the debate has gotten full-blown.

          BTW, plagiarism is a separate issue. If you’ve had to copy someone else’s arguments, then it means you either have no argument at all or do not fully understand what you are saying as they are not your own thoughts after all. Arguments are formed from careful thinking and one’s reflections.

          7. “Then why they can’t categorically say that they don’t care whatever it is in the bible’s teachings and declare that their judgment is based on the cost and benefit of any moral issue.” — Maybe because that is not what they mean. It’s the Catholics making this about the Bible, disregarding that many people who are also constituents are not Catholics. That is the point. Alos, nobody can ask them to renounce their Catholicism because religion is a private thing. In reality, unconditional obedience to any one religion does not occur – except for a few fanatics. I mean, having stated your views on the Church and the teachings of the Bible, am I correct to assume that had you lived in the time of the Crusades, that you would have participated willingly in the pillage and plunder? Perhaps not. Then you would have been asked to renounce. But what was so moral about that? Or rather, the question is, who is to say what is absolutely moral at any day and age? Take note: I do not say that there is no right or wrong – only that you cannot qualify it, many times, by the act alone or whether it is endorsed or not by any religious authority, as history has repeatedly shown us.

          8. Swearing-in on the Bible – I have no idea why it is not the Qur’an or any other Holy Book. It is an interesting topic. But what is even more important is what they utter. They are, in effect, saying – this is what I promise to do. You can swear on a lot of other things, after all – but again, they did not promise anything pertaining to upholding the teachings of any religion. Also, US has a similar practice but it’s interesting to note that some presidents did not do it such as Roosevelt, Coolidge, Hayes. JFK and – oh – Obama. In the Philippines, it was not until Magsaysay that the presidents swore on the Bible. Also, there is a provision in case the President is a non-believer, so you may not even have to utter the last lines of the oath. The Bible is also used in Court, but you don’t see lawyers quoting biblical passages to justify their point.

          9. You specifically mentioned the case of Thailand in the case of Buddhism, perhaps as a parallel case to the Philippines. Well, what I was trying to point out was that Buddhism is different in the context of Thailand. No, they are not trying to be like the Catholics there. They ARE playing the role of the Catholics there in terms of influence. But you would need to go to up to pre-colonized Thailand to understand why they have the influence they have. Also, as for the Muslims, the reasons are political and cultural – not moral, as I have pointed out. The Catholic Church states that it is speaking out during the legislative process in the name of morality. What happened to the Muslims, on the other hand, was not their imposition on the law. Rather, it was an attempt to integrate them into the Philippines. In order to further understand this, as I have stated, you will need to go back to the colonization period, the cold war, the creation of states and finally to policies from all over the world created to ensure territorial sovereignty and the inclusion of the interests of ethnolinguistic groups. That the Muslims have their own laws is brought forth by a situation far different from the Church’s. So it’s not a parallel.

          10. Last I checked, the Church was tax-free. Or has that changed? Not sure. The Church is free to manage it’s own affairs. What they cannot do, quite reasonably, is dicate the morality and opinions of people or even the laws of the land. As I have already stated above using (ample) examples, the flock does not just blindly follow them. A good number have their own thoughts and decisions on the issue. And pray, what laws have specifically interfered into Church affairs? Cite one legislation. I think what you mean to say is that the government, through the enactment of laws, can always choose to disregard what the Church insists is right – which they are very much at liberty to do so.

          I don’t know that politicians are scared of ex-communication. But last I checked, the Church was threatening (i.e. blackmailing) no less than the President with ex-commnunication.

          11. Nope, they are blackmailing. They know the clout ex-communication has. It’s just a surprise for them probably that Pres. Noynoy risked it and declared so publicly.

          12. Ok, moral relativism…using religion not for religious purposes. Why, you could be talking about some of the higher-ups. No, the way I see it, when you are comfortable, you have the luxury of moral absolutism. When you are rarely confronted by ethical issues that forces you to live out your choice, you again have the comfort of moral absolutism . If you think that many of these people are in their comfort zones just because they don’t have a one-track mind, you may be surprised – mostly by how great they are capable of sacrificing.

          13. What is the traditional value? Values change. In the Bible, incest was apparently allowed. Abraham and Sara, Lot and his daughters, etc. So, if we were to follow the teachings of the Bible strictly and adhere to traditional values, would incest be right? Or are you saying that some parts are wrong and some parts are right. Also, Bible scholars can tell you that the translations of the Bible often leads to many wrong interpretations.

          14. For moral relativists, reality compels them to sometimes do what is called by others as “sin”. If a man was about to rape my child and I killed the man in the process of defending my child, I wouldn’t call it a sin. Take note: rape can happen as early as 2 years of age, if you read the papers. So this could be a totally helpless child and the man a psycho. Also, can you be completely sure that you are also following the traditional values in ALL aspects of your life? Remember that the God of the Old Testament was not merciful.

          15. Yes, it is always good to contextualize why these men did what they did. But you are confusing the contextualization with condoning. People able to understand the bigger picture does not necessarily lose their ability to distinguish right from wrong. If a father whose child is dying is forced to steal because he has no money to save his child’s life, then may be deemed wrong. But you may also want to know why he became poor. In many parts of Asia, for instance, farmers are driven out of their land by mining, guns, goons, pulp and paper products, etc. They lose their livelihood and way of life. If you study situations of social injustices, then you would not be so quick to judge.

          Also, your moral absolutism and traditional values, as I have pointed out, are only from a narrow range – that of the Catholic faith. It is more of a fact that possibly an even bigger percentage of the human race is not Catholic. Therefore, they do not sin according to your definition. In the end, the only one burdened by their standards would be you who insist on standing on moral absolutism. Human culture, mainly because of its nature, will always be relative – and that has not changed since man became man.

        11. Hi Nads,

          I say I’m having an insightful discussion with you. I can’t cite all your points of argument but nevertheless, to nick pick:

          “2. It does not matter what the percentage of the split is. The fact is, there is a split and there is very real polarization within the Church on this issue. The fact that the percentage may be tilted towards one side or the other does not subdue it’s relevance.”

          So for you, 1% who disagree is already a split and it’s a very real polarization!

          Just for the rape that you keep on insisting as already a justification for approving the RH bill. As if this is the main argument for it even though rape is an exemption rather than the rule. IMO, even the health of a mother or poverty can’t be the best argument.

          As if, from the way your mind works, all rape victims want to get rid of the resulting unborn child. Or you want to speak in behalf of the rape victims on what you want them to do.

          BTW, using your logic, marijuana should also be legalized since it has a medicinal value that can’t be found in any other drugs.

          Prostitution should be legalized because it can save a lot of people from poverty.

          I like this examples of cognitive dissonance:

          “There are lots of these RH Bill proponents in the congress who have no compunction in terminating lives of unborn children and similarly in the guise of the cost and benefit morality (moral relativism), they are the same ones who promote such ”compassionate” ideas and argues fiercely against the death penalty on the following grounds:

          1) that an innocent could be put to death and/or

          2) the law should not be sanctioning the killing of another, no matter how guilty, no matter how gruesome the crime that was committed.”

          “If a living cell was found on a distant planet, scientist would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe.

          So why is a single cell found in the the womb of a pregnant woman not considered life?”

          As for your –

          “BTW, plagiarism is a separate issue. If you’ve had to copy someone else’s arguments, then it means you either have no argument at all or do not fully understand what you are saying as they are not your own thoughts after all. Arguments are formed from careful thinking and one’s reflections. ”

          As for me, I always make it a point my argument has facts to stand on, call it plagiarism or whatever.

          Yours is your careful thinking of your reflection. An example from how your mind works is your remark from your comment:

          “I have no wish to further delve into the actual number (the info is just as available to you) but I think my CONJECTURE IS A LOGICAL ONE, also given your premise.”

          Conjecture by definition from online dictionary is inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.

          I would not go on commenting to your other comments. The way I comprehend them, most all of them are non seqs.

          Of course, I should provide example –

          “5. Ateneo de Manila has been highlighted in this survey because even though they are Catholic, in this sense, there are many that still hold views that oppose the Church. To date, even La Salle already has 45 professors supporting the bill (and who knows how many more students). And one of the earliest to also issue a statement was the Letran Student Council who stated that even if they are in a Dominican institution that “does not recognize the RH Bill”, they are choosing to take a stance that is different and have clearly stated they are PRO-RH. I do not know about Sebastian College but the above examples only goes to show that either in public or in private, one is not deterred from taking an opposing view just because they are in a religious university/school or establishment – that it does not automatically mean they will adhere to the “official” stand.”

          a) Do you know the reason why Ateneo was highlighted? (BTW, I noticed you get rid of UP that you’ve also cited before, why? You might also want to read “Jesuits support Catholic bishops vs RH bill” http://tinyurl.com/8ecrm42)

          There is this practice in the TV media in their delayed telecast interview with an expert. They always get somebody who agree with their posit. Have you ever wondered why?

          b) You added La Salle and you’re brandishing it. Sanamagan, how many Catholic schools do we have in our country!

          c) And for San Sebastian – according to you, you do not know about it.

          They call it spinning it to your narrative.

          At any rate, for you, 1% dissent is a split and that is polarization. I would not ask from where you based that idea. Suffice it to say it’s your conjecture.

          I rest my case.

        12. Nadz,

          Just so it may be clear to all, my compliment is directed towards your August 31, 2012 1:24am post.

          Again, I could have not said it any better! Thank You!

  8. That’s the cause and effect of voting for people who is not really qualified for a government position. It is we the Filipino people who is also partly to be blamed for voting unwisely. We vote cause of popularity and ignorance I suppose. A large percent of the Philippine population is uneducated but yet qualified to vote. This does not include rigged
    election results as well. So settle down because this is the result of voting people that are not qualified.

    1. “We vote cause of popularity and ignorance I suppose. A large percent of the Philippine population is uneducated but yet qualified to vote.”

      Sometimes it makes me wonder why we became a democracy in the first place… realizing that the voice of a division of fools outweighed the voice of a platoon of wise men… Are the oligarchs ochlocrats?

      1. Sotto wasn’t “appointed” into office but rather voted by people. Take away those people’s votes, Sotto won’t be making speeches as a senator which include so-called “plagiarized” texts. So, yes the votes of the voting public have led to this event. To those who disagree, I say ‘deal with it’! Pinoys should vote responsibly and own up to the flaws of the candidate they’ve voted into office.

        1. Sotto won’t be making speeches as a senator which include so-called “plagiarized” texts. So, yes the votes of the voting public have led to this event.

          What? If that is the logic, no government elect officials will be found guilty of wrongdoing because the voters will absolve them of their crime every time.

          Susmaryosep!

        2. Incompetent choices lead to incompetent results.

          So? Sotto plagiarized and so did the voters?

          You don’t cast blame by association, you do it by commission.

          You vote unwisely, you get unwise people in office. Unwise politicians make unwise choices.

          How will you know you voted unwisely? Who will tell you? Those who lost in the election? You cannot just preach, you also have to show something concrete to support what you’re preaching.

          Voters and the individual politicians both have contributed towards the outcome of an event—in this case, a senator, speaking on behalf of his constituents who never had a problem with him before, borrowing and parodying material, until he happens to take a position on an issue they strongly disagree on.

          Granting for the sake of argument you are correct, how can you identify those people, aside from Sotto, who committed plagiarism? How do you penalized them for plagiarizing? You mean Sotto has accomplices/accessories or conspirators in what he did?

          Naloko na!

        3. Sotto wasn’t “appointed” into office but rather voted by people.

          What’s that got to do with plagiarism? You mean only those voted to office can commit plagiarism?

          Take away those people’s votes, Sotto won’t be making speeches as a senator which include so-called “plagiarized” texts. So, yes the votes of the voting public have led to this event.

          If the people did not vote for Sotto he will not be committing plagiarism? Where did you get that theory?

          I disagree with that simply because it is wrong.

      2. @Jona-s

        What? If that is the logic, no government elect officials will be found guilty of wrongdoing because the voters will absolve them of their crime every time.

        Susmaryosep!

        That’s where your problem lies. You have to think it has to be one or the other. They, i.e. both individual and voters, are culpable but at different degrees. Neither one absolves the other. Both have to shoulder the responsibility though differently. Both the voting public and individual politician should learn their lesson.

        ‘Sentido comon’ lang—Susmaryosep!

        1. They, i.e. both individual and voters, are culpable but at different degrees. Neither one absolves the other. Both have to shoulder the responsibility though differently. Both the voting public and individual politician should learn their lesson. – Felipe

          Both are culpable but at different degree? There’s no such thing and you know it. Because Sotto plagiarized the voters plagiarized too? Where’s the difference in degree there?

          Both have to shoulder the responsibility though differently.- Felipe

          There’s is that “differently” again. Don’t just write/say it, prove it.

          What you said below is very clear

          Take away those people’s votes, Sotto won’t be making speeches as a senator which include so-called “plagiarized” texts. So, yes the votes of the voting public have led to this event. – Felipe

          Where is the “differently” there?

          Susmaryosep, you have to explain that! If you can.

        2. @Jona-s

          Both are culpable but at different degree? There’s no such thing and you know it. Because Sotto plagiarized the voters plagiarized too? Where’s the difference in degree there?

          Both have to shoulder the responsibility though differently.- Felipe

          There’s is that “differently” again. Don’t just write/say it, prove it.

          What you said below is very clear

          Take away those people’s votes, Sotto won’t be making speeches as a senator which include so-called “plagiarized” texts. So, yes the votes of the voting public have led to this event. – Felipe

          Where is the “differently” there?

          Susmaryosep, you have to explain that! If you can.

          So simple a notion and yet it continues to elude you!

          Not an either/or relation between voters and politicians they vote for. Try to soak on that logic. Voters collectively determine which politicians would hold positions. Incompetent choices lead to incompetent results. You vote unwisely, you get unwise people in office. Unwise politicians make unwise choices.

          Voters and the individual politicians both have contributed towards the outcome of an event—in this case, a senator, speaking on behalf of his constituents who never had a problem with him before, borrowing and parodying material, until he happens to take a position on an issue they strongly disagree on.

          Susmaryosep!

        3. Both have to shoulder the responsibility though differently. – Felipe

          But how do you distribute the responsibility? All along I thought it was only Sotto who did the plagiarizing. Now you are saying he has an accomplice. So how do you go about it?

      3. @Jona-s

        So? Sotto plagiarized and so did the voters?

        You don’t cast blame by association, you do it by commission.

        You are unable to comprehend a lot of what I just said. You try to read into it things I’ve neither said nor implied. Simple lang. Vote wisely to raise the standards your officials need to meet consistently—Voters do have that choice and level of control. The level of excellence a culture or society expects from its officials will surely influence the way said officials conduct themselves. Voters need to do more research and improve their selection criteria to be able to tell a capable and willing servant of the people from a dud.

        That’s not what is meant by “blaming by association”.

      4. @Jona-s

        If the people did not vote for Sotto he will not be committing plagiarism? Where did you get that theory?

        I disagree with that simply because it is wrong.

        I’m not saying that—You did. You just rephrased what I’ve said incorrectly, built a strawman, and argued against an assertion you’ve just made up.

        You’re either lazy, having comprehensiin issues, or, just what others think you’re actually doing here—derailing the discussion.

        1. Sotto won’t be making speeches as a senator which include so-called “plagiarized” texts. So, yes the votes of the voting public have led to this event. – Felipe

          Very clear, “the votes of the voting public have led to this event.” Have led to this vent. The voting public caused Sotto to plagiarized.

          Your words not mine.

        2. Hoist Jonas!

          Very clear, “the votes of the voting public have led to this event.” Have led to this vent. The voting public caused Sotto to plagiarized.

          Your words not mine.

          Nothing wrong with what I’ve said—Perhaps, the error lies in what YOU thought I meant, thus, your comprehension issue which you need to learn to workout yourself. You shouldn’t always expect people here to have to break it down to A-B-C for you.

          Susmaryosep!

  9. Benign0

    I have read the privilege speech on SB 2865 Senator Sotto delivered August 13th:
    http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2012/0813_sotto1.asp

    And I have read the response of Ms. Sarah Pope of August 16th.
    http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/on-plagiarism-the-pill-and-presumptuousness/

    The word count is that a total of 194 words were lifted from Ms. Pope’s blog.

    Plagiarism is said to have occurred when a person “with intent to deceive or with reckless disregard for proper scholarly procedures, presents any information, ideas or phrasing of another as if they were his/her own and/or does not give appropriate credit to the original source … there are two kinds of plagiarism: one that is committed with the intent to deceive (intentional plagiarism) and one resulting from the disregard for proper scholarly procedures (unintentional plagiarism).” https://plagiarism.duke.edu/def/

    “Unintentional plagiarism is plagiarism in which the author does not mean to deceive, cheat or plagiarise … It commonly occurs due to ignorance or lack of understanding of acknowledgement conventions.” http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08plagiary.html

    I think Senator Sotto’s plagiarism may fall under the category of “unintentional plagiarism.”

    For a more balanced view of plagiarism, I refer you to: “Plagiarism: a misplaced emphasis” (Journal of Information Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1994, pp. 36-47). http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/94jie.html

    The Abstract of this Article states that: “Plagiarism is conventionally seen as a serious breach of scholarly ethics, being a theft of credit for ideas in a competitive intellectual marketplace. This emphasis overlooks the vast amount of institutionalized plagiarism, including ghostwriting and attribution of authorship to bureaucratic elites. There is a case for reducing the stigma for competitive plagiarism while exposing and challenging the institutionalized varieties.”

    I refer you also to several articles (2006-2007) from — Plagiary — an on-line journal “devoted specifically to the study of plagiarism and related fabrications/falsifications within the professional literature (i.e. scholarly journals and books) and popular discourse domains (i.e. journalism, politics, audio-visual texts).” http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/

  10. I think Senator Sotto’s plagiarism may fall under the category of “unintentional plagiarism.”

    Oh, good! I thought it was not plagiarism.

  11. Yes, perhaps it’s true that people might be encouraged to channel their righteous indignation and rage towards tackling graver matters, i.e. Sulpicio lines example given, or say making sure the Ampatuans’ large asses are thrown into jail for eternity. Perhaps there pervades in cyberspace a mob- rule, witch-hunt feeling and netizens straddle the line between using the Internet for Good ( achieving genuine social change ala Arab Spring) or for Evil ( using it as platform to cast stones because it’s the fad, promoting character defamation, spelling out the sound of mocking laughter as
    ‘jejeje’ which is PURE evil.)

    But this fuss over Tito Sotto is a big deal, and should be. WHY? Because through the power of the Internet, for perhaps the first time in their lives, stupid politicians like Tito Sotto are actually getting feedback about their sorry selves faster, more brutally and more in-your-face than ever before.And not a day too soon. After years of pulling off trapo tactics, getting away with murder and having only political pundits occasionally jabbing at them( if those pundits are not fearing for their lives) ordinary people —and a hell of a lot of ordinary people for that matter, are now able to tell politicians ” you suck.” in whatever uncensored way they want. Sotto and his kind probably still don’t know what’s hit them. It must be terrifying for politicians to see that netizens they pooh-poohed years ago as either the minority or too niched an elite group to bother with have now swelled in numbers as well as reach and are now capable of making a Philip Morris executive apologize to his MMDA victim because thousands of people made time in their day to call him ‘baboy’ on facebook and twitter. It must be chilling for them to see that journalists and Mr Sottto’s favorite bloggers, actually HAVE a venue to air their opinion and influence the public. For a guy like Sotto who was used to doing the airing of his opinion and not having to hear someone else’s, whether through his senate podium speeches covered by media to his appearances on His own tv show, this must be a real game-changer. And it must be very hard on his ego, as evidenced by the way He has continued to act like a cornered animal and started acting desperately. His latest move has been reaching into his bag of trapo tricks to quickly get his footing again, I.e. mention the merits of Eat Bulaga, crying, acting like the victim. And in spite of this, people are still talking about him on the net and what all the brouhaha means. Maybe it’s a fad, and the mob will soon tire of it to move on to the next protest. But until it does, this fuss being made over his plagiarism, his arrogance about addressing it and the stupidity of his chief of staff should continue to send the message —- Mr Senator, we ain’t buying your crap, not back then, not now, not anymore and never again. We’re out here, we’re watching you, we’re opinionated as hell and You will hear us even in your dreams. So run back and tell the other stupid politicians that it is the information age and tht they should be very afraid. And if only for the ability to say that, in my humble opinion, this whole plagiarism brouhaha is important.

    1. Oops, do the last couple of lines constitute ” cyber-bullying”? Should I be worried when his blogger bill is passed?

  12. It is basic good manners to give credit where credit is due. it is acceptable to quote others even verbatim , in support of your argument as long as due credit is given to the original source or a formal permission is obtained for copyrighted information prior to use. When a national public figure,who is expected to uphold the norms of a civilized society, does otherwise for whatever reason, it really leaves a bad taste and make us sick in the stomach.

  13. the issue isn’t so much about plagiarism as it is about being stupid and being arrogantly proud about it. he is a senator. he represents, to some extent, our people. the whole world is probably laughing at us now for this idiocy and his vehement stand that there’s nothing wrong with the things he did, be it copy things off of a blog without giving due credit to the blogger OR directly translate a part of a speech given by some famous but long-dead politician.

    THE POINT HERE IS HE’S STUPIDLY AND ARROGANTLY VEHEMENT ABOUT ALL THIS. i really can’t care less if he’s copied anything from anyone. but i do care that he represents us and that i and my fellow filipinos may be stereotyped as arrogant and stupid, all thanks to him.

    and that bit you said, about how all this shouldn’t be a big deal because no one’s getting hurt directly, that’s a stupid point. just because no one’s getting hurt doesn’t mean nothing’s wrong, and that sure as hell doesn’t justify people defending sotto. then again i have to digress. maybe you’re as stupid as he is, ergo you feel the need to defend him. lol.

  14. I don’t approve of plagiarism at all, but I find it quite ridiculous for a society or a culture in which unoriginality is so pervasive to keenly expect its representatives to be otherwise. Innovative and original societies produce innovative and original representatives. Non-innovative and unoriginal societies produce or breed representatives with those same traits. Like produces like—not so hard a concept to grasp.

    1. I made the exact same point when MVP was caught back in 2010 with his Sotto moment. This is a culture that is proud of Arnel Pineda, Lastikman and Darna. Arnel Pineda is just an Elvis impersonator who does not focus on Elvis. Why be proud of that?

  15. we seem to forget that when tito, vic, and joey were just starting in student canteen, they trio had a portion wherein they would sing the pop songs of the time but with their own lyrics.
    i guess the good senator never really outgrew this. this meaning using somebody else’s work and profiting from it.

    “was any one harmed?”

    the answer is obvious.

  16. this point may have been made already, so pardon me if i’m just echoing a sentiment. many are disappointed with the senator, not so much because of the plagiarism, but because of how he handled the situation. many months back, MVP was also accused of having plagiarized portions of a speech delivered during a commencement exercise. this news died very quickly, because MVP was also just as quick to apologize and admit to the faux pas, which was after all really the fault of his speech writer which i assume he pays well enough to know better.

    going back to my point, sotto should have just done the same, apologized, reprimanded his staff a bit, and this would all be over. he has yet to issue a sincere apology though not only to the public, but also to the bloggers he copied from. even worse, he did it again with his translated kennedy speech. how he handled the situation speaks of the kind of human being he is. too proud and arrogant to admit to a fault. this is not the kind of senator we want. a public servant serves with humility, is not infallible, and holds himself accountable for all his actions.

  17. Many pinoys think that Sen. Sotto was being arrogant for not saying “sorry”. I think he was not. Just like most unoriginal Pinoys, the senator CANNOT see anything wrong with what he did. He cannot comprehend what “plagiarism” is. The netizens can scream, bite and pull their hairs. But first he needs to understand his “crime” before you can extract sorry from him. Ever wondered why the Senator thinks that he’s a victim in this whole brohuha?

    1. Many pinoys think that Sen. Sotto was being arrogant for not saying “sorry”. I think he was not. Just like most unoriginal Pinoys, the senator CANNOT see anything wrong with what he did. He cannot comprehend what “plagiarism” is.

      He is arrogant and he knows what plagiarism is and what he did was wrong. He is so arrogant that he allegedly plagiarized again, this time it was Sen. Robert Kennedy’s speech.

      While I understood the embarrasing repercussion on his part, Sotto’s denial/deadma antics has really made him a laughingstock of the whole archipelago. Whenever I see his face on TV I cannot help but laugh (so stupid!).

      Crime or not, the embarrassment, the ridicule, the mockery and how the issue has turned him into a buffoon is enough punishment that will linger on for quite awhile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.